The China model: Educational influence and convergence in Vietnam

• In Event: Global Educational Discourses, Policy Diffusion, and National Models in East Asia

Proposal

Introduction
China’s rapid, unprecedented, and sustained economic rise serves as an attractive role model for other nations seeking to modernize their educational systems and economies. While the global discourse of educational reform and best practice models promoted by international organizations has traditionally shaped reform efforts (Niemann, 2021), China has recently emerged as an increasingly robust source of influence, offering educational strategic priorities and policies drawn from more than two decades of large-scale educational reforms. This shift reflects the broader trend of countries across Asia and Africa increasingly looking to China for educational innovation and reform. Against this backdrop, this study explores whether and how educational policies in Vietnam converge toward the Chinese model. As Vietnam seeks continued modernization, global integration, and stability, it faces persistent educational challenges including disparities in access to quality schooling, uneven student learning outcomes, underdeveloped teacher professionalization, and underprepared for a rapidly changing knowledge economy. In our paper, we use a comparative policy analysis framework to investigate the dynamics of educational policy transfer and adaptation in Vietnam. We ask three questions: 1) To what extent have China’s educational reforms shaped policy priorities in Vietnam? 2) Through what mechanisms are Chinese policy models transmitted and adapted in the Vietnamese context? By situating Vietnam as an illustrative case, our research illuminates China’s growing as a leader in education policy and highlights the implications for transnational knowledge flows, policy convergence, and educational change across Asia.

Theoretical Framing
This study is framed by theories of policy diffusion (Ramirez et al, 2016), policy borrowing (Steiner-Khamsi, 2012), and soft power (Nye, 2004) to explain Vietnam’s increasing attention to the China educational model. In Vietnam, China’s rapid and large-scale educational reforms offer both practical lessons and symbolic legitimacy, making Chinese policies attractive to Vietnamese policymakers seeking contextually resonant solutions. Together, these frameworks illuminate both the mechanisms of policy transfer, and the reasons Vietnam looks to China as a model, reflecting broader shifts in regional knowledge flows and influence in education. While theories of policy diffusion and borrowing illustrate how policy priorities spread through coercion and imitation, our emphasis on soft power spotlights the way states can influence others by projecting success and legitimacy, making their models desirable for emulation (Nye, 2004).

Method of Inquiry
This study uses comparative policy analysis approach (Steiner-Khamsi, 2004; Bray et al, 2014) to investigate the influence of the China educational model on educational reform and policy priorities in Vietnam. Our analytical strategy combines content analysis (Krippendorf, 2004) of national educational plans and educational policy documents over a 40 year period in both countries with semi-structured interviews with ~ 35 policymakers, ministry officials, and educators in Vietnam. Engaging in a process of comparison and contrast of educational policies across place, purpose, and time, we identify similarities, divergences, and adaptations between Chinese and Vietnamese educational policies as well as mechanisms of direct and indirect diffusion and contextual factors shaping policy emulation.

Research Findings and Significance
Our preliminary findings suggest a pattern of Chinese influence and policy convergence between Vietnam and China across several key areas of educational reform. For example, Vietnamese policymakers have looked to Chinese strategies to improve teacher quality, adopting professional development frameworks, evaluation systems, and performance incentives that mirror China’s approaches to teacher development. Convergence is also evident in policies promoting privatization, internationalization, talent development, and greater diversification of institutions, reflecting a deliberate alignment with practices associated with rapid educational expansion advancement in China. However, our analysis also reveals some notable divergence in areas such as early childhood education and a comprehensive examination system; in both instances Vietnam has pursued policy options that are more progressive and experimental than the China model. Not surprisingly, our interviews with educators and policymakers underscore a belief that the country should deliberately implement and tailor Chinese educational policies that have proven effective, highlighting both the practical lessons and legitimacy of China’s educational and economic successes. These findings suggest that Vietnam’s educational trajectory increasingly positions China as its model, signaling shifts in knowledge flows, policy influence, and global leadership in education reform.

By examining the evolution of Vietnam’s adoption of Chinese educational reforms, our paper illuminates the mechanisms of policy diffusion and borrowing in Asia, highlighting how soft power and regional legitimacy shape the movement of ideas and practices across the region. For Vietnam, the research underscores the practical and symbolic value of looking to China as a model, providing evidence-based insights into which reforms—such as teacher preparation, talent development, and internationalization—can be adapted effectively, while also identifying areas of divergence. Just an importantly, the findings highlight China’s emerging role as a knowledge leader and model in education, demonstrating how domestic policy success can translate into transnational influence and shape educational priorities beyond its borders. More broadly, the study challenges traditional assumptions that international organizations or Western models dominate global education policy, offering a more nuanced understanding of new centers of influence and the complex dynamics of policy convergence and adaptation.

Authors

• Jennifer H Adams, Johns Hopkins University, School of Education

• Nguyen Hoang Phung Pham, Johns Hopkins University, School of Education

• Kim Manh Tuan